Moses – The Back of My Mind

The Saudi Sinai: More of the “Evidence”

Posted on:

March 14, 2025

Modified on:

March 15, 2025

I have previously published two somewhat lengthy articles about Ron Wyatt’s “Mt. Sinai” at Jabal at-Laws in northwest Saudi Arabia. Discussions of Mt. Sinai on Facebook’s popular archaeology sites are often disrupted by people (never archaeologists) stating confidently that “the real Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia, and there is a ton of proof!” Tim Mahoney of Patterns of Evidence, who I admire, has endorsed the Saudi site, though he is skeptical of Wyatt’s honesty.

I personally favor the traditional Jebel Musa (“Mountain of Moses”) site in the southern Sinai Peninsula. I could be wrong, but the evidence I see, while not proof, is compelling. I’m very convinced that it is not in Saudi Arabia!

Ron Wyatt

The late Ron Wyatt (June 2, 1933 – August 4, 1999) was a nurse-anesthetist working in the Nashville, TN area. In 1960, he saw a Life Magazine photo of a geological formation near Turkey’s Mt. Ararat shaped like a large boat. He decided on the spot that he wanted to become an “archaeologist.” He quit his job, traveled to Turkey, found the formation, and claimed that he had just discovered the true Noah’s Ark. He spent much of his remaining life in the Middle East, claiming to have made around a hundred discoveries, many of them of amazing importance.

Wyatt has a very wide following around the world among Christians who are enthralled by his astounding claims. I have heard him lovingly described as “God’s own archaeologist.” In his videos, he always appears humble and sincere, and even sheds tears as he talks about being privileged to have literally met with Jesus, face to face, in the flesh. Really?

Unfortunately, his discovery claims are based solely on superficial appearance. If it looks like a duck, then by golly, it must be a duck! Real archaeology, even if it starts with a visual identification, requires extended scientific testing to establish age, provenance, composition, and other applicable characteristics. Data must be carefully collected and evaluated, meticulously documented, and verified by experts in appropriate fields. Though Wyatt usually claimed to have followed these steps, his only witnesses were his own family and associates, and ultimately, he always found excuses for never producing any proof that he actually did so.

Wyatt was a member of the Seventh Day Adventist denomination. That organization is very interested in archaeology but, whatever you think of their theology, they are Christians of integrity, and they were embarrassed by Wyatt’s many deceptive and quite unbelievable claims. Therefore, in the months immediately before his unexpected death from colon cancer, two of the Adventists’ intellectual leaders, the brothers Russell and Colin Standish, researched and wrote a book to quietly, and as respectfully as possible, refute Wyatt’s claims: Holy Relics or Revelation: Recent Astounding Archaeological Claims Evaluated, Hartland Publications, 1999. Even discarding frequent references to the works of Sister Ellen G. White, 1827–1915, founder of the denomination and believed by them to be an inspired prophet, the book does an excellent job of stating the case against Wyatt.

Previous articles in series

As stated above, I have previously published two articles about what I have called, “the Saudi Sinai.”

The first, “Moses, Paul, Sinai, Midian and Arabia“, June 4, 2022, addressed the issue of Paul’s statement in Galatians 4:25 that Mt. Sinai was located in Arabia. Most people anachronistically equate “Arabia” with the current country of Saudi Arabia, which came into existence in the 20^th century. My article shows that both Arabia and Midian extended into the Sinai Peninsula in both ancient and classical times.

The second, “Geology and the Saudi Sinai“, December 13,2022, discussed in depth two of the most frequently cited “proofs” for the Saudi Sinai: the so-called “burnt mountain” and the nearby “split rock.”

Additional “evidence” for Saudi Sinai

In the remainder of this article, I will mention, as briefly as I can, other “proofs” of the Saudi Sinai offered by Wyatt.

The Nuweiba crossing

Wyatt and those who follow in his footsteps believe that the Israelites followed the route shown below in Fig. 1 and crossed the Yam Suf (the “Sea of Reeds“, incorrectly translated by KJV as “Red Sea“) at a wadi delta called Nuweiba Beach.

Fig. 1: Wyatt’s proposed route from Egypt to the Reed Sea Crossing. From evidence-for-the-bible.com.

Patterns of Evidence elected to promote this route and an Aqaba crossing largely based on evidence presented by Dr. Glen A. Fritz, holder of a PhD in Environmental Geography from Texas State University. In his 2016 book, The Lost Sea of the Exodus: A Modern Geographical Analysis, Dr. Fritz insisted that the term, Yam Suf, is only known to apply to the gulf of Aqaba, never to any other body of water.

I was skeptical of this claim from the first time I heard it, because it conflicts both with ancient historical naming principles that I’ve long been aware of and with modern oceanic map usage that I learned as a Naval officer. Today, the terms “Gulf of Suez” or, variously “Gulf of Aqaba“, “Gulf of Eilat“, or “Gulf of Elat“, are used, and appear on maps, but these appear as offshoots included as part of the greater Red Sea.

Similarly, the “Great Sea” of antiquity, now known as the “Mediterranean Sea,” is the all-inclusive body of water stretching from the Strait of Gibraltar to the shores of Syria, Lebanon and Israel, and which encompasses and includes a number of named minor seas like the Ionian, the Aegean, the Adriatic, etc.

My own belief has been and still is that the Sea of Suf included the entire Red Sea region and even into and beyond the Gulf of Aden. It seems likely to me that it (the Sea of Reeds, Yam Suf) probably got its name from floating masses of reeds washing in and out of the tidal estuary north of Suez City to and beyond the Bitter Lakes. Near Egypt, the most populous area in the entire vicinity.

A scholarly 2020 book titled, Where Was the Biblical Red Sea: Examining the Ancient Evidence, by Dr. Barry Beitzel, professor emeritus of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, was written primarily to refute both the methodology and the conclusions of Dr. Fritz’ book. It essentially states what I already believed, but with much background and historical support.

Nuweiba alternatives

Several locations have been proposed for the “Red Sea Crossing” site. From north to south:

The site favored by Tim Mahoney’s sidekick, archaeologist David Rohl, is the shallow Lake Tanis, in the Nile Delta. David got very angry at me for disagreeing on this, so don’t tell him that I later wrote a more formal refutation in God with the Wind.
The site favored by most scholars from the last century more or less, is the tidal Bitter Lakes region, quiescent since the Suez Canal was opened and disrupted normal tidal flows in the estuary. I think that this location, like Lake Tanis, was originally proposed due to reluctance to believe in a significant miracle. Conservative Evangelicals tend to go along with this choice, hopefully due to ignorance of the argument’s history.
The traditional site, and my favorite, is the crossing near the northern tip of the Gulf of Suez, shown below in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: The traditional route of the Exodus, showing a crossing in the northern Gulf of Suez, near Suez City. I added the green arrow to show an alternate routing in the same region; this route is longer and deeper, but certainly doable for God. Skeptics argue that either of these two alternatives is “impossible” since the wind to hold back the water would be too strong for human survival. But in God with the Wind, I argue that the wind only accompanied the miracle, rather than being causative.

A land bridge at Nuweiba?

Fig. 3: Gulf of Elat (Aqaba), depth of water, Geological Survey of Israel.

The crossing favored by Wyatt is at Nuweiba Beach, on the Gulf of Aqaba, a.k.a., the Gulf of Elat, or Eilat, Fig. 3.

The annotated red arrow points to this beach, a small delta on the western shore. Though difficult to read at the scale shown, the deepest point in the crossing area is in excess of 900 meters, more than a half mile!

More importantly for the Israelites: Even if God dried a path there for them, they would have had to navigate a steep gradient, almost a foot for every three-foot stride, near the eastern shore. Imagine moving heavily laden wagons and animals up such a steep slope for several miles.

By terming the shallow saddle between opposite banks of the Gulf a “land bridge”, Wyatt prejudiced the argument in his favor. Technically, a land bridge is “a strip of land [above the normal waterline] connecting two landmasses” (per Merriam Webster). Even if one loosens this definition to include land that breaks the surface only at low tide or during a draught, Nuweiba doesn’t even vaguely qualify.

The Nuweiba pillars

Fig. 4: Granite pillar on Nuweiba Beach, said to be erected by Solomon, but exhibiting no markings. Concrete pad added in 1978. Ron Wyatt is the white-haired man in field khakis, his back to the pillar. arkdiscovery.com.

Wyatt claimed to have found a stone pillar on Nuweiba Beach and a second stone pillar on the opposite shore, both erected by King Solomon to memorialize the crossing at that location. The circumstances of this discovery are as follows:

He first discovered the pillar on the Beach (west) side of the gulf in 1978. It was a “Phoenician-style” granite column bearing no markings whatsoever (he said they had either been eroded off or chiseled off by persons unknown), and it was laying on its side next to the road. After mentioning it to the local military officials, they poured a concrete slab and set the pillar upright, Fig. 4.

A Saudi military helicopter later flew Wyatt to the east bank, where he found a matching pillar, but with its markings intact. In Phoenician (Proto-Hebrew) script, it exhibited the words: Egypt, Slomon, Edom, death, Pharoah, Moses and Yahweh. Of course, there is no substantiation that this pillar ever existed.

According to Wyatt, the Saudi authorities removed it before anyone thought to take photographs. So, what does it prove? Only that Ron Wyatt was never an archaeologist!

Wheels and bones

Ranking the “evidence” for Wyatt’s Saudi Sinai, chariot wheels and bones, human and horse, under water at the Nuweiba “crossing” site have to be no deeper than third on the “most talked about” list.

Wagon wheels

Are they really there? Well, yes, a few of them. That was verified by Patterns of Evidence. Fig. 5 is the best photo I could come up with. Wyatt’s best wheel photos were all invalidated as even potential evidence by being photoshopped. To be considered evidence a wheel would have to be brought to the surface and cleaned off, at minimum. Until then, it can only be assumed that there is a wheel beneath the coral, and until a recovered wheel is C¹⁴ dated and otherwise tested at a professional lab, nothing there qualifies as evidence, only as a discussion topic.

Fig. 5: Coral-encrusted wagon wheel off the coast of Nuweiba, arcdiscovery.com.

But assuming they are wheels (which seems reasonable), are they chariot wheels? War chariots were specifically designed for rapid travel on well-worn or paved roads, and for fighting on more or less level surfaces. They were of no use on rocky, mountainous, or grossly uneven terrain.

Fig. 6 shows a 3D rendering of an “anatomically correct” Egyptian chariot from the 18th dynasty. The components, including the wheels, were kept as slender as possible for the sake of speed and agility. The wheel rims and spokes were laminated for strength and suppleness. Leather “tires” were added for additional strength and to dampen vibrations. Leather sleeves also strengthened the axles. The hubs were reinforced by hammered bronze girdles.

Fig. 6: Partial 3D scan of the Egyptian chariot of Yuya from the 18th Egyptian Dynasty during the New Kingdom. Along with his wife Thuya, they were the parents of Tiye, who was the Royal Wife of Amenhotep III. ©Nate Loper.

In contrast, the “wheel” in Fig. 5 appears to be too bulky to be anything more warlike than a wheel from a cart or wagon, probably pulled by oxen.

Wagon wheels or hand wheels?

Fig. 7 is another artifact found at offshore Nuweiba. Wyatt supporters claim that it is a golden chariot wheel, presumably off of Pharaoh’s chariot. Coral and other encrustations, they claim, will not stick to gold. These claims are pure amateur foolishness.

Why foolish?

Coral can surround and ingulf any material that is submerged long enough in its presence.
Even pure gold will tarnish in salt water.
In a less than pure state, or when plating another metal, corrosion would quickly occur.
Pure gold is too malleable for use on chariot wheels.
Though wheel-shaped, this device is too thin in cross-section to be load-bearing.
It would require a lab test to be sure, but I’m guessing from the photo that this device was machined and therefore is recent.
I’d be willing to bet that it is stainless steel, not gold.
Since there is nothing in the photo to give it scale, it could be much smaller or larger than a chariot wheel.
My guess is that it is a modern industrial valve wheel handle (Fig. 8), something that I am personally very familiar with. I’ve worked with some that are very similar to what is shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 8 shows one that is powder coated for use indoors or outdoors but not submerged. Stainless handles are made for saltwater and submerged operations and are sometimes easily as large as a chariot wheel.

Fig. 8: Replacement handle for an industrial gate valve. Ellis Irrigation LTD.

Bones

In addition to wheels, it is claimed that human and horse bones have been recovered under the waters at Nuweiba (see Fig. 9). I’m not aware if there has been any independent verification of that claim.

Why at Nuweiba?

The next question to be answered is, why at Nuweiba? Given the paucity of specimens, Nuweiba hardly qualifies as underwater graveyard, but why are they there at all, if they weren’t an Egyptian army “swept under” by God?

This is easy to answer! The Gulf of Aqaba is not an erosion feature, having no major rivers. It is a fault line that is slowly pulling apart due to plate tectonics. Water currents in the Gulf are almost entirely due to tidal flow through the Strait of Tiran (Fig 10:). The result is a gentle north/south wash, peaking at around 7 miles per hour each direction.

Fig. 10: Daylie tidal flow in the Gulf of Aqaba. ©Journal of Geophysical Research.

The city of Eilat, at the northern tip of the Gulf, has been occupied since prehistoric times, and has been an important seaport for most of that time, exchanging goods with northern regions via the ancient King’s Highway and with southern regions via Red Sea shipping lanes. All busy shipping lanes experience occasional shipwreck due to storms, collisions, groundings, military actions and other mishaps. Since military equipment has always been a frequent trade category, it is inevitable that chariots and wagons, as well as dead humans and horses, ended up in the water.

When boats or other wooden structures are swamped, they float for a time, and then as water soaks into the pores, they eventually tend to lose buoyancy and slowly sink. Freshly dead bodies may float awhile unless they are heavily encumbered, then they, too, begin to sink. As they decompose, gases accumulating in body cavities will cause them to eventually float back to the surface. I’m sure that research would show a tendency for semi-buoyant objects to collect on the undersea shelf at Nuweiba over time.

Additional claims on or near the mountain

In addition to the blackened mountaintop (basaltic lava flows) and the split rock (frost wedging and exfoliation of a glacial “erratic” perched on a glacial moraine), other findings in the area of Jabal al-Lawz have been cited as evidence for Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia.

Pictographs

The pictographs near Al-Lawz, Fig. 11, may be associated with ritual, but most likely they are simply graffiti. Possibly ancient, but I doubt that any attempt has ever been made to scientifically date them.

But similar pictographs have been found all over the Arabian subcontinent, not to mention the entire world. I grew up less than an hour’s drive from ancient Anasazi pictographs in New Mexico.

Fig. 11: Pictographs near the base of Jabal al-Lawz.

12 pillars

Exodus 24:4 (ESV)
[4] And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

It’s funny how many people read a verse like that and immediately assume that Moses built an elaborate worship area with shaped stones and formal pillars like a Pharaoh, or Herod the Great, would commission. But the verse above sounds like a one-day project to me.

For the previous 40 years of his life, Moses had lived rustically as a nomadic desert herdsman. The way I picture it, he got up in the morning, collected and stacked stones into a rough altar and 12 cairns, or perhaps 12 oblong standing-stones.

There is actually no reason whatsoever to connect these stones (Fig. 12) with Moses and the Exodus. The Saudi government and nearby residents have suggested alternative explanations that are as plausible or more so than Wyatt’s.

Fig. 12: Ruins of some unknown structure at the foot of Jabal al-Lawz.

Elijah’s Cave

1 Kings 19 describes Elijah’s flight from Queen Jezebel to a cave on Mt. Horeb, a.k.a., Mt. Sinai. And, Glory be, there it is, on the side of the Saudi Sinai (Fig. 13)!

Fig. 13: Cave on the side of Wyatt’s Mr. Sinai, above the region with the pillars. ©Doubting Thomas Research Foundation.

Not so fast! The whole area around the Red Sea, northwest Saudi Arabia, the Sinai Peninsula, up the Jordan Valley, and even into Iraq, Anatolia and Eastern Europe is tectonically active. Fissures and caves come and go with each earthquake, and there have been many of those!

There’s no evidence here!

Wyatt’s museum

The Wyatt Archaeological Museum in Cornersville, TN (Fig. 14), now permanently closed, was given rave reviews by Ron Wyatt’s fans, but as far as I can tell from many interior photos, the only legitimate archaeological specimens it contained were inexpensive tourist items available from any antiquities shop in the Middle East.

There were several mildly interesting but worthless mockups and scale models. The best of those was a full-scale model of an Egyptian chariot, much like the famous chariot from King Tut’s tomb. Table loads of trivia and trinkets. Every bit of wall space had new clippings, posters, or blowups of snippets from his videos.

Now, it’s closed, and its web site is shut down.

Moses, Paul, Sinai, Midian and Arabia

Posted on:

June 4, 2022

Modified on:

March 12, 2025

Many amateur archaeology enthusiasts now believe that the “true” Mt. Sinai is the volcanic peak Jebel al Lawz, in northwest Saudi Arabia. This view was popularized by another amateur, Ron Wyatt, who left his day job as a nurse anesthetist in Tennessee, traveled to the Middle East, and fraudulently proclaimed himself to be an “archaeologist”. Most of the “proofs” for this location are in the nature of superficial visual appearance, not scientific investigation and analysis. But that’s a story for another day.

Sinai in Arabia?

In this post, I want to concentrate on Biblical statements regarding Arabia and Midian that Wyatt enthusiasts, and even some doubters, regard as indisputable proof. The most common that I’ve heard, one that is supposed to quash all dissent, is

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
—Galatians 4:25 ESV (emphasis added)

The theological context of this verse is beyond my scope here, but we have to ask what Paul meant by “Arabia” in that verse, and in Gal 1:17, where he speaks of going away to Arabia. If you think he meant “Saudi Arabia” then think again, because that country did not exist until the 20th Century. Nor do I think that the concepts of “Arabian Peninsula” or “Arabian sub-continent” were known in Biblical times. Mentions of Arabia and Arabian Kings in the Old Testament and contemporary writings refer to scattered independent petty sheikdoms and bands of nomads inhabiting the desert areas shown in brown on the map below. No borders are shown on the map because neither Arabia nor Midian, which I’ll discuss below, were unified political entities.

Arabia in the Ancient Near East. ©Accordance Software

What originally made the region Arabia was not a political, or even a geographical connection, but rather the fact that it was populated predominantly by Arabs. The Arabs are a genealogically diverse mixture of largely Ishmaelite tribes. Some historians tie the term “Ishmaelite” specifically to Arabs that lived around the Hijaz, or western coast of the subcontinent, but I use it here to refer to all descendants of Abraham’s son, Ishmael. The term, “Arab“, is derived from a Hebrew root ערב (‘arab), meaning “to crisscross or traverse”, referring probably to their nomadic movement from place to place. As herdsmen and traders, they ranged throughout regions encompassing today’s western Arabia, certainly, and up into modern Jordan, Syria, eastern and southern Sinai and the Negev in Israel.

in the context of the New Testament, the most likely meaning of “Arabia”, is the area then known as the Nabataean Kingdom, shown below roughly outlined in orange, consisting of the modern northwest corner of Saudi Arabia, most of modern Jordan, and all of the Sinai Peninsula east of the present Suez Canal. Note that this area contains both Jebel Musa (the traditional site in Sinai) and Jebel al Lawz (Wyatt’s site east of the Gulf of Aqaba).

The Nabatean Kingdom circa AD 85, ©**Villeneuve Nehme**.

Nabataea became a formal kingdom at around the middle of the 3rd Century BC. In general, it was friendly to Hasmonean Judea. Nabataean independence ended when they were finally conquered by Rome, under Trajan, in AD 106. Under Roman administration, they were split into two districts, Arabia Petraea in the west And Arabes Nabataei in the East (see next map, below). Both Jebel Musa and Jebel al Laws are located in Arabia Petraea.

Detail from Wikipedia map of the Roman Empire, circa 125 AD, ©Andrein

Paul in Arabia?

After Paul’s “road to Damascus” encounter, he went to Arabia for some unstated reason and duration. Perhaps he “camped out” in the Wilderness to pray and commune with God. Perhaps he lived for a while with Bedouins to learn the tent-making skills that provided his financial support during his missionary journeys.

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;
nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
—Galatians 1:15–17 ESV (emphasis added)

The wording of the passage quoted above implies to me that he purposely avoided the apostles for the time being. My assumption is that he wanted his instructions to come directly from God, since God had chosen him to reveal the mysteries of the new Church. Some commentators suggest that he traveled to Petra for some type of religious or geographic training, but I think his knowledge in those areas needed no further enhancement. If he spent time in any city during this period, I think that Philadelphia (ancient Rabbath Ammon and modern Amman, Jordan) was more likely.

Philadelphia in the time of the Apostle, Paul. By Nichalp – Own work, CC BY-SA 2.5

Moses in Midian?

The Midianites were a nomadic tribe descended from Midian, a son of Abraham by his wife Keturah. They were a warlike people who engaged in herding, trade, and banditry. Like Arabia, Midian is a region, not a formal geographic or political entity. Most maps of Midian will show it as in the map below—east of the Gulf of Aqaba, but with no borders. Archaeology has little to say about the location. There is some sparse artifactual evidence, mainly pottery, in the area shown and north of that region, in the southern Lavant. Some literary evidence indicates a Midianite presence also in eastern and southern Sinai. This “rural spread” makes perfect sense. The entire region was arid. Nomadic herders tended to establish temporary homes that could be moved from place to place as pastures become depleted by overgrazing. There were also caravan routes connecting the furthest extents of the region (see the first map, above), an obvious enhancement to both trade and banditry.

Sinai and Midian, per Atlas of the Bible Lands

Many of Wyatt’s supporters will say that the Sinai Peninsula could not have been used by Midianite herdsmen because it was part of Egypt. Once again, borders were fluid in ancient times, where they existed at all. Egypt’s interests were primarily along the Nile. Their interest in the Sinai was limited. The roads in and out, especially the Way of the Sea, were fortified and patrolled for defensive purposes. Otherwise, only the mining areas along the Gulf of Suez coast were of significant value to them.

Historic Anchors for Israel in Egypt

Posted on:

July 4, 2016

Modified on:

December 13, 2024

I am presenting here a list of dates for key events in Egyptian/Biblical history. Dating of Biblical events during the Egyptian period is very firm, if you believe as I do that the Bible is inerrant and its time references are literal. Dating of the Egyptian King Lists is more problematic, as I will discuss below.

Middle Kingdom, 12th Dynasty

Dating the reigns of Middle Kingdom monarchs is particularly difficult, with a particularly large range of proposed possibilities. I have a fairly large library of Egyptian history. In this post I will list, separated by slashes, two of the newest chronologies that seem reasonable: First is the timeline presented by Van De Mieroop in A History of Ancient Egypt; second, the one I personally prefer, taken from the Wikipedia article, “Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt”, as last edited on 21 December 2021. A radically different chronology by Egyptologist David Rohl, has recently been popularized by the Patterns of Evidence series of videos. I plan to review this series in the near future, but for now, I like most of what is presented in the first two videos, but not so much the second two or the anticipated fifth. Rohl, a self-styled agnostic, follows the lead of various evangelical scholars who shorten the period of the Hebrew “sojourn” in Egypt from the explicitly stated 430 years to 350 years, based on what I believe is a simplistic misunderstanding of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Egypt’s capital throughout the 12th Dynasty period was located in ancient Itj-Tawy, located around 35 miles south of modern Cairo and 21 miles south of ancient Memphis.

Pharaoh Amenemhat II, 1911-1877/1929-1895 BC

Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt around 1899 BC, at 17 years old (Gen 37:2-29). Most of my sources would put this event somewhere in Amenemhat’s reign. I would place the timing shortly before a brief coregency of Amenemhat and Senusret II.

Pharaoh Senusret II, 1877-1870/1897-1878 BC

Joseph languished in Egyptian slavery and prison for some 13 years before he “stood before Pharoah” at age 30 (1886 BC) to interpret Pharaoh’s dream and to be elevated to Vizier rank (Gen 41:46). By my accounting, this Pharaoh was Senusret II, who seems to have devoted the final eight years of his reign to promoting Joseph’s recommendations for the productive years. Domestically, he is best known for developing the Fayyum Basin area west of the capital. This is a basin watered by a natural offshoot of the Nile, anachronistically named Bahr Yussef (“the Waterway of Joseph”). Although widening of this waterway was done well before the Middle Kingdom era, Senusret built numerous canals for irrigation and to control the levels of the valley’s Lake Moeris for the purpose of land reclamation. He also built new settlements in the center and around the borders of Egypt and appears to have greatly expanded his bureaucracy in these regions. Regarding foreign affairs, he is known to have fostered a period of peaceful trade with the hated “Asiatics” of the Levant.

Pharaoh Senusret III, 1870-1831/1878-1839 BC

This powerful Pharaoh began his reign about eight years after the elevation of Joseph. I believe that his story is told in

Genesis 41:54-57 (CJB)
[54] and the seven years of famine began to come, just as Yosef had said. There was famine in all lands, but throughout the land of Egypt there was food. [55] When the whole land of Egypt started feeling the famine, the people cried to Pharaoh for food, and Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, “Go to Yosef, and do what he tells you to do.” [56] The famine was over all the earth, but then Yosef opened all the storehouses and sold food to the Egyptians, since the famine was severe in the land of Egypt. [57] Moreover all countries came to Egypt to Yosef to buy grain, because the famine was severe throughout the earth.

Senusret continued the agricultural developments begun by his father and attempted to maintain peace within Egypt and with Egypt’s neighbors, but the balance of power within Egypt changed radically during his reign. Since no later than the 3rd Dynasty, Egypt had been divided into individual districts called “nomes“, each ruled by a hereditary “nomarch“. These powerful nobles had decentralized Egyptian rule and placed limits on the Pharaohs. Senusret III seems to have used the famine years and his monopolistic control of Joseph’s well-stocked granaries to break the economic power of the nomarchs and to recentralize power within his kingdom.

In 1876 BC, near the beginning of the famine years, Jacob and the rest of his family and their retinues moved to Egypt (Gen 46:1-47:9). Why were they offered seemingly prime space in the fertile land of Goshen, the eastern Nile Delta region? Was this land gift purely out of Pharaoh’s love for Joseph? I doubt it. Their “Asiatic” origins were a heavy strike against them. They ignored Joseph’s warning not to mention that they were shepherds. Egypt’s herds were cattle, and sheep tend to overgraze pastures and make them unsuitable for raising cattle.

Late 12th Dynasty

Joseph died at 130 years old, in 1806 BC, having lived in Egypt after the famine during the reigns of Senusret III, Amenemhat III, and Amenemhat IV. Queen Sobekneferu was just coming into power for a brief, 4-year reign.

To Top

Hyksos Period

While there is no question that the 12th Dynasty Pharaohs recognized Joseph’s wisdom and supported his programs as Vizier, as mentioned above, I personally have reservations about the sincerity of their welcome of his Hebrew family. Senusret III, in particular, hated the Nubians of Africa and was at best ambivalent about “Asiatics”—foreigners from eastern Mediterranean lands, many of whom had been infiltrating Lower Egypt for generations. I suspect that the Pharaohs’ invitation to Jacob and their tolerance of the Hebrews was more to keep Joseph happy and his relatives under observation.

At the close of the chaotic 14th Dynasty, a group of Asiatics, speaking an Aramaic/Canaanite west-Semitic dialect, took control of Egypt. They came to be called “Hyksos“, meaning “the rulers of foreign lands”. They were settled throughout Goshen and along the Lower Nile Valley, with scattered settlements into Upper Egypt. Dynasties 15, 16 and 17 consisted primarily of Hyksos rulers with their capital first in the eastern Nile Delta city of Avaris, and later in Thebes. They were not deposed until Amose I, founder of the 18th Dynasty, unseated them. He and his successors eventually drove them out of Egypt.

To Top

Enslavement

Aside from secular and Deistic theories that equate the Hyksos with the Hebrews, I have never seen or heard a discussion of the inevitable dispersal of the Israelites in Egypt during the Hyksos rule and early 18th Dynastic period. Exodus 1:5-7 implies that the original 70 “sons of Israel” had multiplied until they occupied not just Goshen, but rather “filled” all of the habitable land of Egypt. I imagine that they were displaced completely from Goshen itself, but in any case, as slaves they would have been required to concentrate close to where they worked. By Moses’ time, most of their work would certainly be in Upper Egypt, except at flood times. Travel from the Delta to Thebes by foot would probably have taken them around two weeks, at best. Without any archaeological or written records either way, I am assuming that the bulk of the slaves were sheltering along the Nile wherever they were needed at any given time.

Exodus 1:7-21 covers an undatable period of history after the death of Joseph and before the birth of Moses. A traditional understanding of the chapter assumes that the entire passage describes a single wicked Pharaoh, but I would rather divide it as follows:

the Pharaoh who “did not know Joseph”, and who ordered their enslavement—possibly as early as late in the 12th Dynasty (Ex 1:8-11);
a long period of increasing oppression and further population expansion (Ex 1:12-14); and
the Pharaoh who, during that period, tasked the midwives to kill Israelite boys (Ex 1:15-21).

To Top

New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty

Most scholars today use a Conventional Egyptian Chronology for this period. The currently popular Patterns of Evidence series is pushing David Rohl’s alternative “New Chronology”, which most Egyptologists agree is way off the mark. Within the 18th Dynasty, the Conventional view has two primary variations, due to an ambiguity in tying the ancient Egyptian calendar to our Gregorian calendar. The so-called “Low Chronology“, which is most popular, contains later dating; use of the “High Chronology” results in dates 20 years earlier. Personally, I prefer a variation of the Low Chronology, as presented by Christian Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen. Though I don’t agree with his conclusions about Biblical dating, his Egyptian dating seems to me to fit better with the Biblical narrative as I interpret it.

Pharaoh Amenhotep I, 1532-1511 BC

Moses was born in 1526 BC, by Kitchen’s Chronology, during the 6th year of Amenhotep’s reign. The order to throw newborn boys into the Nile was probably issued shortly before that time, so it is safe to say it was Amenhotep’s order (Ex 1:22). There is a problem with this chronology, though: the following passage (Ex 2:1-11) states several times that it was “Pharaoh’s daughter” who rescued Moses and later adopted him, but Amenhotep had no male or female heirs at all except for one son, who died at a very early age. If the dating is correct, then this wording can still be regarded as correct if she was the daughter of either a past or future Pharaoh. There is precedent for this type of royal ambiguity both in scripture and in other ancient writings. If so, there are three possible scenarios:

She could have been a daughter of Amenhotep’s father, Pharaoh Ahmose I. Ahmose had 12 children, including several daughters, but those who survived to 1526 would have been fairly old by the standards of the day. I think it would have been unlikely that any of them would be at the river under these circumstances.
Amenhotep was succeeded by Thutmose I, who was a military figure and not related to him at all. Thutmose did indeed have a daughter, Hatshepsut, who was 16 years old in 1526, and was suitable for other reasons, as well. See below.
Thutmose might have been considered the current Pharaoh if he was coregent with Amenhotep. This would not have been unusual, and there is some evidence of a coregency; but it would have to have lasted at least 15 years, which is very unlikely.

Pharaoh Thutmose I, 1511-1498 BC

Thutmose’ birth date and parentage are unknown. Amenhotep died without an heir, and it is likely that Thutmose, probably close to Amenhotep’s age, was promoted from a senior military position. Thutmose had five children over his lifetime, of which three died before his accession. His daughter, Hatshepsut, was born around 1541 BC, in the 16th year of Ahmose I’s reign. She would have been 16 years old when Moses was born, in the 6th year of Amenhotep’s reign, which certainly would have made her the ideal candidate for the (eventual) “Pharoah’s Daughter”. When Thutmose became Pharaoh, Moses was 15 and Hatshepsut undoubtedly a “headstrong” princess at 31 years old.

Exodus 2:5 (CJB)
[5] The daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe in the river while her maids-in-attendance walked along the riverside. Spotting the basket among the reeds, she sent her slave-girl to get it. [6] She opened it and looked inside, and there in front of her was a crying baby boy! Moved with pity, she said, “This must be one of the Hebrews’ children.”

Pharaoh Thutmose II, 1498-1485 BC

When Thutmose I died in 1498 BC, he was replaced by his only surviving son, Thutmose II. Egyptian Pharaohs were almost always male, but succession was determined through a matriarchal system which frequently resulted in brother/sister marriages. Thutmose II was the son of Thutmose I by a minor wife, which made his claim to the throne weak. This he remedied by marrying his older half-sister, Hatshepsut, a daughter by Thutmose I’s chief wife.

Based on tradition, and possibly documentation that was available to him at the time, 1st Century Jewish historian Josephus reported that Moses was indeed a “prince of Egypt”, without question receiving the same education that any other Egyptian prince would have received in the eventuality that he might one day inherit the throne of Pharaoh. Josephus reported that Moses led the Egyptian army in at least one successful campaign against the perennial enemy in Nubia.

Although I believe that Hatshepsut was Moses‘ adoptive mother, and I have no doubt that she carefully supervised his education, I think that he later became a liability to her own ambitions. When Moses fled from Egypt in 1486, it was clear (as is evident from the state of his mummy) that Thutmose II was dying. Hatshepsut had her own plans going forward, and there may have been a risk that Moses would be seen as a viable heir. When she heard that Moses had killed an Egyptian, she had an excuse to get rid of him, either in her husband’s name or her own:

Exodus 2:15 (CJB)
[15] When Pharaoh heard of it, he tried to have Moshe put to death. But Moshe fled from Pharaoh to live in the land of Midyan.

I am not ignoring the masculine pronoun in “he tried”. Because Pharaohs were almost always male, Hatshepsut began dressing and acting as a male Pharaoh, and insisted that she was king, not queen, of Egypt. All references to her during much of her reign were masculine.

I think that Moses was savvy enough to recognize his danger. It is also significant to me that he was not sentimental about her at this point, either:

Hebrews 11:24 (CJB)
[24] By [faith], Moshe, after he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. [25] He chose being mistreated along with God’s people rather than enjoying the passing pleasures of sin. [26] He had come to regard abuse suffered on behalf of the Messiah as greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he kept his eyes fixed on the reward.

Pharaoh Hatshepsut, 1485-1464 BC

When Thutmose II died in 1485 BC, he was succeeded by his infant son, Thutmose III, so Hatshepsut became queen regent. She reigned as actual Pharaoh for 19 years, until her own death. She is regarded by many as one of the most powerful woman monarchs of history. She died when Moses was 62 years old, roughly the midpoint of his 40 years in Midian.

Pharaoh Thutmose III, 1464-1431 BC

Thutmose III became sole ruler on Hatshepsut’s death. He is known as the “Napoleon of Egypt” for his many military campaigns and is considered to have been a military genius.

The Exodus and the loss of his armies occurred in 1446 BC, in approximately the 18th year of his reign after Hatshepsut’s death. His extreme reluctance to release the Hebrew slaves, despite the severity of the plagues, can probably be explained by Thutmose’s unwillingness to use potential fighting men in their place for common labor. In the few years after the Exodus, he continued his foreign invasions, and claimed great victories, but scholars discount these claims because there was apparently so little booty taken. There is no reason to assume, however, that the loss of so many of his fighting men in the Red Sea would have suppressed his military might for long.

Some commentators object to Thutmose III as the “Pharaoh of the Exodus” because they read some verses elsewhere in the Bible as stating that he had to have drowned with his army—for example:

Psalms 136:13 (CJB)
[13] to him who split apart the Sea of Suf,
for his grace continues forever;
[14] and made Isra’el cross right through it,
for his grace continues forever;
[15] but swept Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Suf,
for his grace continues forever;

I don’t believe that this poetic description is meant to be precise; just flowery! In any case, the Hebrew text does not support the strength of the “and” interpretation.

Pharoah Amenhotep II, 1431-1406

Amenhotep was Thutmose III’s son by a minor wife. Interestingly, Thutmose’ firstborn son, Amenemhat, son of chief wife Satiah, was the heir-apparent until his death “between years 24 and 35 of Thutmose’ reign.” When accounting for the period of coregency with Hatshepsut, this conforms quite nicely with the Biblical account of the killing of the firstborn!

To Top